Miguel, is Ben Volin missleading with cap numbers here?

Money may dictate Patriots’ roster moves - The Boston Globe

@Miguel , In this article it seems like Volin is being a bit misleading by not counting the top 51 rule and that someone actually has to replace the player on the roster. Is that correct?

Like Cannon for example that he say should not sleep well when the Pats would actually only save 200k by releasing a very capable backup.

Am I correct or have I gotten my cap knowledge wrong?

You should tag him to call his attention to the thread right when he signs in: @Miguel

Nice avatar, by the way.

KontradictioN said:

You should tag him to call his attention to the thread right when he signs in: @Miguel

Nice avatar, by the way.

Click to expand...

Will do. Thanks for the tip.

Volin is using cap numbers the way most do, which is to use the actual numbers, in isolation, for the purposes of discussion. That's not misleading. Miguel has decided to do his differently, and both are correct ways of saying very similar, but slightly different, things.

Volin is incorrect and misleading. There are not two different ways to say how much cap money you save by cutting a player.

It is not so much the rule of 51, as it is common sense.

Volin says the Patriots could save 690,000 on the cap by cutting Cannon. This would only be true if they decided to field a team of 52 players. The 690,000 they would be choosing to not pay Cannon would be replaced by a different player making more or less.

Since misleading implies that Ben Volin knows how the Top 51 rule fully works and I have yet to see any evidence that he does, am not comfortable in making that determination. As DI pointed out I choose to use net cap savings. I do so since I like to compare my cap space number to the official one.

Brutal! And funny!

PatsWickedPissah said:

Brutal! And funny!

Click to expand...

Yup. Miguel plays the Salary Cap like a Stradivarius Violin while Ben Volin plays it like, well, Ben Volin.